From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH for 3.2.34] memcg: do not trigger OOM from add_to_page_cache_locked Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 20:55:10 +0100 Message-ID: <20121217195510.GA16375@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20121205141722.GA9714@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20121206012924.FE077FD7@pobox.sk> <20121206095423.GB10931@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20121210022038.E6570D37@pobox.sk> <20121210094318.GA6777@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20121210111817.F697F53E@pobox.sk> <20121210155205.GB6777@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20121217023430.5A390FD7@pobox.sk> <20121217163203.GD25432@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20121217192301.829A7020@pobox.sk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=dM1v33DKUG/40/PGm1k9sSd6COs87ISoDF6r2JBNq3o=; b=dbe9V5owOzox+Rdd0fL4glrPB9i7NqIn1zJl+nxyt7yBXT/fFTJjrcZcJMbvRuLC5/ 8lAfmE24AnFqD0/Rnw7M0vZjgmwj70xsQr/Uw1/herLZ064nu+RzGyBLRXWdTceFbJBw w/h+NhnOpLND5eJgz0+CNJzbMEAufOyABn+cfOmBNGDmEs/NOaYK5K7dct763Q7uvg7l BEW4vqBpqTo/IrRIviSDEOrpCVuhFb0reO46iR1+YFwsHg8TBoAW5m3vrs4hzigiVBLc QnflWIMcVFwRWTlxK9w/QuAvYJInNUTLFyOkfzrFXXB1ryjHogT8X3iDmSFhNSqOwQw7 NvBw== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121217192301.829A7020-Rm0zKEqwvD4@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: azurIt Cc: linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, cgroups mailinglist , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Johannes Weiner On Mon 17-12-12 19:23:01, azurIt wrote: > >[Ohh, I am really an idiot. I screwed the first patch] > >- bool oom = true; > >+ bool oom = !(gfp_mask | GFP_MEMCG_NO_OOM); > > > >Which obviously doesn't work. It should read !(gfp_mask &GFP_MEMCG_NO_OOM). > > No idea how I could have missed that. I am really sorry about that. > > > :D no problem :) so, now it should really work as expected and > completely fix my original problem? It should mitigate the problem. The real fix shouldn't be that specific (as per discussion in other thread). The chance this will get upstream is not big and that means that it will not get to the stable tree either. > is it safe to apply it on 3.2.35? I didn't check what are the differences but I do not think there is anything to conflict with it. > Thank you very much! HTH -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs